Just to wander sightly off topic again (sorry ), what strikes me is how unified the forum initially was against the idiot journalist, how a rather off topic controversy seemed to turn the anger inwards in such a cannibalistic way , then there was a refocusing on the common enemy, and there we all feel good again

You could write a thesis on group human behaviour from this thread, but one observation I have to make is how easily this community can become fractured. Even in the context of a response to a common foe.

That's perhaps indicative of a weakness of the cycling community, and a challenge: speaking with one voice to the public whilst encouraging constructive debate and entertaining differing views internally is very important to us all.

And on the whole we are pretty good at it, so we should have the confidence to remain unshaken by agent provocateurs and indulgent of dissenters.

Oh, you think the Press Council takes this kind of stuff seriously? Okay then. And there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Personally, I'd have sent a copy of the column to Media Watch. Then I'd have rung the guy and offered him my spare bike and the chance to come for a ride, gently explaining to him what it was all about so that he could see the error of his ways.

I apologise for the long delay in communicating with you about this matter. As previously advised we sought a response from the publication after receiving several complaints.

Having further considered the issues and the publication’s response to the complaint, we do not consider that the level of offence to be so grave as to outweigh public interest in freedom of expression. In reaching this decision, we note that the article is clearly identified as an opinion piece and falls within the Standards of Practice that acknowledges publications are free to publish the by-lined opinions of others that may express robust and at times, provocative views.

Accordingly, we have decided not to refer the matter to the Adjudication Panel. We realise that this outcome is not what you hoped to achieve, and again, we apologise for the regrettable delay in reaching this decision. We welcome your active interest in compliance with appropriate standards of media practice. Please feel free to contact me if you would like any further information or to bring other matters to the attention of the Council.

Via email: safecyclingaus@gmail.comDear Mr SharpRe: Gold Coast Bulletin, “Meers: Time to curb pedal power”, 11 December 2012I apologise for the long delay in communicating with you about this matter.As previously advised we sought a response from the publication after receiving several complaints.Having further considered the issues and the publication’s response to the complaint, we do not consider that the level of offence to be so grave as to outweigh public interest in freedom of expression.In reaching this decision, we note that the article is clearly identified as an opinion piece and falls within the Standards of Practice that acknowledges publications are free to publish the by-lined opinions of others that may express robust and at times, provocative views.Accordingly, we have decided not to refer the matter to the Adjudication Panel. We realise that this outcome is not what you hoped to achieve, and again, we apologise for the regrettable delay in reaching this decision.We welcome your active interest in compliance with appropriate standards of media practice. Please feel free to contact me if you would like any further information or to bring other matters to the attention of the Council.Yours sincerely,Paul NangleDirector of Complaints

Didn't exactly need anti plagiarism software to spot the similarities. You'd think in the 6+ months since they made the decision to extend the digit that they could have budgeted 20 minutes for someone to shuffle a paragraph or two.

zero wrote:List of possible punishments available to the adjudication panel.

Nothing.Nothing.Nothing.

Seriously? Funded by whom?

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

Typical of self-regulation. It is an institutionalised conflict of interest.

However, in this case, it is preferable to having them regulated by the government, which would be a conflict of interest of Orwellian proportions.

In the absence of a constitutional bill of rights, an independent media - flawed as it is - is at this time our primary and most effective check on the abuse of power by government. I fear the day when that is surrendered.

That's freedom of the press for you, all right. For me, the Courier-Mail sums it up in a nutshell. It's a vile rag, 99% full of mindless parochial claptrap and syndicated articles, but every so often it puts out a story that justifies its existence. If Daniel Meers is the price we have to pay for a free press then I too am happy to pay it. Doesn't stop me wishing he'd stayed under his rock instead the day he wrote that article...

trailgumby wrote:In the absence of a constitutional bill of rights, an independent media - flawed as it is - is at this time our primary and most effective check on the abuse of power by government. I fear the day when that is surrendered.

The purpose of this independent media is to protect the citizenry - publishing hatred is no better than government propaganda. It serves the community no better. I do not need the media to think for me. They are either serving the public or they are serving themselves. Either way, if they are not interested in being fair and balanced, they will reap the rewards of what they sow. Most of these bogan chipwrapper fillers will be jobless soon enough because there is no place online for such claptrap; it gets found out for being the garbage that it is.

Xplora wrote:The purpose of this independent media is to protect the citizenry - publishing hatred is no better than government propaganda. It serves the community no better. I do not need the media to think for me. They are either serving the public or they are serving themselves. Either way, if they are not interested in being fair and balanced, they will reap the rewards of what they sow. Most of these bogan chipwrapper fillers will be jobless soon enough because there is no place online for such claptrap; it gets found out for being the garbage that it is.

I'm pretty sceptical about the independence of the media, too. While I understand that the internet mass social media can be pretty persuasive at times, I don't see any real difference between the online media and printed. In both cases, if an article sounds reasonably plausible, a lot of people will believe it, because it may just reinforce their preconceptions. For many, questioning those preconceptions is much more effort than just accepting what the article claims.

VRE wrote: if an article sounds reasonably plausible, a lot of people will believe it.

Too true, great example are the chainmail posts that get around on facebook, the most recent ones I can think of claiming that asylum seekers get paid more by the government than pensioners (completely false) and just the other day, a list of "new" qld road rules with the sub-title "they kept these quiet didn't they?" (of course NONE of them were new, and they were all perfectly sensible and reasonable).

But the interwebz never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.

When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.